Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Concern about the role and the limits of modeling has heightened after repeated questions were raised regarding the dependability and suitability of the models that were used in the run-up to the 2008 financial crash. In this book, Lawrence Boland provides an overview of the practices of and the problems faced by model builders to explain the nature of models, the modeling process, and the possibility for and nature of their testing. In a reflective manner, the author raises serious questions about the assumptions and judgments that model builders make in constructing models. In making his case, he examines the traditional microeconomics-macroeconomics separation with regard to how theoretical models are built and used and how they interact, paying particular attention to the use of equilibrium concepts in macroeconomic models and game theory and to the challenges involved in building empirical models, testing models, and using models to test theoretical explanations. Lawrence Boland has been teaching at Simon Fraser University since 1966. He has also taught at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and was a visiting professor in the department of economics at Boston University. At Capilano College and Vancouver Community College, he taught introductory sociology. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. Dr. Boland has published six books on economic methodology, including The Foundations of Economic Method: A Popperian Perspective (2003); The Principles of Economics: Some Lies My Teachers Told Me (1992); and The Methodology of Economic Model Building: Methodology after Samuelson (1989)\"-- Provided by publisher.

Our study outlines the evolution of a highly rated accounting journal, Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR). We examine two tensions (high quality, global journal versus Canadian authorship and homogeneous versus diverse research) that arose during CAR’s history, using Canadian Academic Accounting Association documents (CAAA) and evidence from the main articles published in CAR’s first 27 volumes. We address three research questions relevant to exploring the identified tensions: Where have CAR’s published authors been concentrated in terms of geographical location? What types of research have been published in CAR over the period? How well has CAR succeeded in meeting its original and later editorial objectives? With respect to published main articles, our findings indicate that being a high quality, global journal has won over promoting Canadian authors and that articles published in CAR tend to be more homogeneous than might be expected from the original objectives and later editorial statements. Our findings should be relevant to those interested in the history of accounting research and to those trying to publish in CAR.

Lawrence Boland takes issue with both economic methodologists and practicing economists. He argues that there has been too much 'methodology for methodology's sake' and that mainstream economics might benefit by using methodology to take a critical look at economic theory.

Many consider Foundations of Economic Method to be Lawrence Boland's best work. This updated edition is radically changed from the original and will be much appreciated by thinkers within economics. The book positions methodology vis-à-vis the current practice of economists and is all the better for it. Yet another book that not only deserves to be read by those within the field of economic methodology, but also by those involved in economics at all . Boland is back. Lawrence A. Boland is Professor of Economics at Simon Fraser University, Canada. He has published widely within economic methodology and is a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

Methodological criticism of the foundations of neoclassical theory, particularly of the maximization hypothesis, have intensified. However, these arguments are unsuccessful; for anyone opposed to neoclassical theory, misdirected criticism is worse than the absence of criticism. Even though the neoclassical hypothesis is not a tautology, no criticism of it will ever be successful because of the possible types of theoretical criticism, the logic of those criticisms, and the methodological status of the maximization hypothesis in neoclassical explanation. It is still futile to criticize the maximization hypothesis because there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. If a problem exists, it lies in the methodological attitude of most neoclassical economists.

The conclusion of this paper is that market prices fail to reflect the information required to provide meaningful accounting measurements that are used in real-life decision making. This failure is due to the employment of an \"ideal\" economic world's assumptions that do not, and cannot, fit the real world of business. The argument in the paper begins with a discussion of the ideal market as envisioned by the Chicago School and outlined in Tisdell (1995). From this ideal market characterization, it is argued that even Adam Smith recognized the existence of external effects resulting from certain social undertakings. In addition to externalities, two other market failures are discussed: the use of efficiency measures while ignoring effectiveness measures; and the emphasis on the short-term time horizon at the expense of the longer term.

. One theoretical approach recently emphasized in the accounting literature is positive accounting theory. Synonymous with this theoretical view are the 1978 and 1979 articles published by Ross Watts and Jerold Zimmerman. These two articles prompted criticism from three different perspectives. There are critiques that refer to technical research methods problems, critiques concerned with philosophy of science issues, and critiques centered on the limitations of economics‐based accounting research. In their 1990 article, Watts and Zimmerman responded to most of the published critiques. They specifically claimed that methodological criticisms have failed to have any influence on accounting research. This paper provides a critical examination and assessment of these alleged failures by examining two types of critiques, economics‐based critiques and those based on issues of the philosophy of science. The critiques discussed include those to which Watts and Zimmerman responded as well as several other critiques that either Watts and Zimmerman failed to discuss or that were not published until after their 1990 article appeared. Positive accounting theory is shown to be applied economic positivism. Tracing the historical background of positive accounting research through its economic roots shows that the “positive” aspect of the Watts and Zimmerman approach is more rhetoric than methodology. It is argued that positive accounting theory does represent a problem shift toward a domain of research that is appropriate for Chicago School economics. A review of the published critiques of positive accounting theory shows that although critiques based on philosophy of science may not be very effective, economics‐based critiques that emphasize the limitations of equilibrium‐based economic analysis offer a promising avenue for methodological critiques of positive accounting theory. Résumé. Parmi les publications relatives à la comptabilité, celles qui touchent la «théorie de la comptabilité positive» attiraient récemment l'attention. Ross Watts et Jerold Zimmerman, dans leurs articles publiés en 1978 et 1979, adoptaient l'équivalent de ce point de vue théorique. Ces deux articles ont soulevé les critiques, dans trois perspectives différentes. Certaines critiques portent sur le problème des méthodes techniques de recherche, d'autres ont trait aux questions relatives à la philosophie de la science et d'autres encore sont centrées sur les limites de la recherche comptable qui s'appuie sur l'économique. Dans leur article de 1990, Watts et Zimmerman réfutaient la plupart des critiques qui avaient été publiées, invoquant plus précisément le fait que les critiques méthodologiques ne sont pas parvenues à influer sur la recherche comptable. Les auteurs procèdent à un examen et à une évaluation critiques des lacunes que l'on impute à cette théorie, sous forme d'analyse de deux ordres de critiques: les critiques relatives aux fondements économiques et les critiques relatives aux questions touchant la philosophie de la science. Les critiques analysées comportent celles auxquelles Watts et Zimmerman ont répondu ainsi que plusieurs autres critiques que ni Watts ni Zimmerman n'avaient analysées auparavant ou qui n'ont été formulées qu'après la publication de leur article de 1990. Les auteurs démontrent que la théorie de la comptabilité positive équivaut au positivisme économique appliqué. En retraçant les fondements historiques de la recherche sur la comptabilité positive dans ses racines économiques, ils démontrent que l'aspect «positif» de l'approche de Watts et Zimmerman est plus réthorique que méthodologique. La théorie de la compatibilité positive représente toutefois le déplacement du problème vers un domaine de recherche qui convient à l'économique de l'École de Chicago. L'analyse des critiques de la théorie de la comptabilité positive qui ont été publiées démontre que même si les critiques se rapportant à la philosophie de la science ne se sont peut‐être pas révélées très efficaces, les critiques se rapportant à l'économique et mettant l'accent sur les limites de l'analyse économique basée sur l'équilibre ouvrent des horizons prometteurs aux critiques méthodologiques de la théorie de la comptabilité positive.